In this work, an experiment was designed in which a defined route consisting of country roads, highways, and urban roads was driven by 20 subjects during the day and at night. The test vehicle was equipped with GPS and a camera, and the subject wore head-mounted eye-tracking glasses to record gaze. Gaze distributions for country roads, highways, urban roads, and specific urban roads were then calculated and compared. The day/night comparisons showed that the horizontal fixation distribution of the subjects was wider during the day than at night over the whole test distance. When the distributions were divided into urban roads, country roads, and motorways, the difference was also seen in each road environment. For the vertical distribution, no clear differences between day and night can be seen for country roads or urban roads. In the case of the highway, the vertical dispersion is significantly lower, so the gaze is more focused. On highways and urban roads there is a tendency for the gaze to be lowered. The differentiation between a residential road and a main road in the city made it clear that gaze behavior differs significantly depending on the urban area. For example, the residential road led to a broader gaze behavior, as the sides of the street were scanned much more often in order to detect potential hazards lurking between parked cars at an early stage. This paper highlights the contradictory results of eye-tracking research and shows that it is not advisable to define a holy grail of gaze distribution for all environments. Gaze is highly situational and context-dependent, and generalized gaze distributions should not be used to design lighting functions. The research highlights the importance of an adaptive light distribution that adapts to the traffic situation and the environment, always providing good visibility for the driver and allowing a natural gaze behavior.

When interacting with technology, humans often deal with delays between an action and the desired action outcome. Through delay adaptation these delays will become less detrimental to visuomotor performance over time. Delay adaptation has been shown for a variety of tasks and control modes, from simple button presses causing a beep or flash to continuous target-tracking tasks. Here we investigated whether the delay adaptation is specific for the control mode used, when the task itself remained unaltered. To this end, participants performed a target tracking task in which they controlled a cursor item either by moving a stylus on a graphics tablet or by pressing the arrow keys on a keyboard. We found that delay adaptation occurred for both these types of control modes, but observed no transfer to the other control mode. This indicates that delay adaptation is specific to the control mode used during adaptation.